You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #11: The leases are for a certain duration. [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
Igel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-13-08 09:26 PM
Response to Original message
11. The leases are for a certain duration.
They haven't violated the terms of the leases if they sit on them.

Now, much of the land is almost certainly fairly useless for oil. They get no profit from ignoring useless land, and none from returning it to the feds. So why not sit on it?

The problem is that much of the land hasn't been properly explored. That takes time, and they usually explore more promising territory first. It costs money to explore. Exploring territory that's highly unlikely to return a profit is, well, silly. But often you have to lease large chunks of useless territory to get access to the parts you want access to.

So as far as leases go: Sitting on them has no downside, and might have an upside. They'll expire eventually.

There's a nifty federal report that looks at lands that have been probed and which are likely to contain petroleum deposits. Then there's a Congressional report misquoting the nifty report, and confusing % of oil with % of land. A large percentage of untapped oil reserves aren't available for drilling. Most known, untapped oil reserves that could be drilled occur on a fairly small fraction of the leased territory. The latter point is, oddly, exactly what you'd expect, so you'd expect Congress to have to do some selective misquoting to show otherwise.

Now, consider Mexico's problem with oil fields. They have territory they know contains oil. But they lack the technology to get to it. Some of the known oil in lands that *can* be drilled probably hasn't been profitable to get to. Having the feds revoke the leases and re-bid the leases wouldn't make them any more profitable. Crank the price of oil ... they might be profitable. However, given the low price of oil until fairly recently there wasn't much motivation to invest in oil exploration equipment so most companies didn't, and it can take years to develop a field. Now there's motivation, worldwide, and so the equipment's very much in demand, so much so that there's a bit of a shortage. Moreover, most of it (like most of the oil production) is in the hands of governments, not "big oil", so don't expect the oil fields in the US to be pumping oil any time soon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC